The U.S. Will Not Go to War Against Iraq: Not ever

National Review Online ^ | May 20, 2002 | John Derbyshire

[xsysmgr]

Are you starting to get the feeling I'm getting, the feeling expressed in my title? The feeling that there will be no war against Iraq? Not this year, not next year, not ever?

Let me emphasize the word "feeling." As a responsible columnist, I am going to do my best to justify my title with facts. It all starts with a feeling, though — a slow-rising, ever-strengthening feeling that it just ain't going to happen. I spend a couple of hours every morning surfing news sites, reading the papers, gathering material for NR editorials and web columns. I go to functions where I meet people who know stuff. I read, I listen. Occasionally I pick up a revealing fact. Much more often, I just accumulate impressions. Reader, I have accumulated the impression that the U.S. will not go to war against Iraq. But let me do my best to justify that.

First of all, this is no way to make war. By "this" I mean these jut-jawed expressions of determination to act... but not till next year, when all is ready; these fatuous exercises in "coalition-building" or "seeking understanding"; these protestations that the time is not yet ripe; these specious rumors of materiel inventories that need to be built up. (Concerning which, Colonel David Hackworth, who has a considerable reputation in these matters, says, to Larry Henry, that it's all bull: "Got enuff to take Iraq and Iran at the same time." Uh-huh. So all this delay is for... what? To give us time to organize peace between Israel and the Arabs? Oh, that won't take long.)

This is no way to make war. The most elementary fact about war, that you learn in your first week of lectures at staff college, or can pick up for yourself by reading half a dozen decent books of military history, or just by talking to veterans, is that battles are won by speed, audacity and surprise. Gentle reader, in the administration's movement towards engagement with Iraq, do you see speed? Do you see audacity? Do you see surprise? Do you even see any sign that our government is capable of those things? I sure don't.

It is true that one, or even two, though probably not all three, of those key elements can be dispensed with if you possess overwhelming force. That's why unimaginative, plodding generals sometimes win wars; that's why Dwight Eisenhower carried off the D-Day landings (he still had surprise). And we probably do possess overwhelming force, even allowing for the couple of years we have given Saddam Hussein to further disperse his biowar facilities, plant saboteurs in the U.S., acquire a few North Korean missiles and add another 20 feet of reinforced concrete to his underground command bunkers. Which brings me to the next issue: Do we actually have the will to use that force? Or, more to the point, shall we have that will in spring of 2003?

I was once in the capital city of a country that was going to war. That was London in 1982, when Margaret Thatcher took her country to war against Argentina. I remember the electric sense of urgency in the air, the fevered preparations: welders working 12-hour shifts to rig helicopter pads on to the decks of requisitioned cruise ships, the lights on all night in the barracks, the seasoned army officer I knew who told me, so grim-faced I believe he really meant it: "I will kill to get a berth on the Task Force." (He didn't get one. Serving officers were clambering over each other, gouging eyes and ripping out hair, to get their names on the Task Force rosters.)

War is a fierce and desperate business, operations thrown together in haste and launched at a hazard, junior officers racing forward to be the first to distinguish themselves, staff officers spotting unexpected strategic opportunities and hurling at them everything that comes to hand. Materiel shortages and supply bottlenecks are chronic, there are never enough engineers, and you improvise somehow. (Improvisation is a core military skill. Waiting for all the ducks to line up is not part of a soldier's job. The ducks aren't ever going to line up. The ducks are trying to kill you.) War is not systems analysis; war is not Mergers and Acquisitions; war is not computer programming. War is noise and smoke, opportunity and frustration, chaos and slaughter.

In the case of aggressive war — which, let's be frank and unapologetic about it, is what this projected war against Iraq would be — there is also what Bernard Montgomery called the "hare and hound" factor: The hare is running for his life, while the hound is merely running for his dinner. Other things being equal, bet on the hare. For the Iraqi regime — not just Saddam, but all his place-men — there would be a great deal at stake in a war, far more than would be at stake for anyone in Washington, DC. That's not a reason not to go to war, if we are truly resolved, but it is a reason to examine our resolution, and ask ourselves whether it has the necessary component of determined stone-cold ruthlessness. In 1991 it didn't, which is why Saddam Hussein is still with us. Are we hound enough to play hare and hound?

Speed... audacity... surprise... resolution... ruthlessness... fevered preparations... volunteers working 12-hour shifts... officers standing on line all night in Pentagon corridors for a chance at a combat posting. That's war. Do I see these things when I look at Washington DC today? No, I don't. Shall I see them a year from now, when our resolve, our anger, our desire for revenge, have had twelve more months to dribble away like sand between our fingers, and every excuse for inaction (never any shortage of those) has been rehearsed on a thousand TV talk shows by everyone with an interest in making the Bush administration look foolish (definitely no shortage of those)? When 9/11 is a fading memory, washed over with layers of frivolity — the latest celebrity murder, the latest political squabble, the latest judicial outrage, the latest stock market spike?

I'm not betting on it. If the mood in Washington today — or even, may the brave lads fighting in Afghanistan forgive me for saying it, the mood in Washington last fall — if that mood were the mood I saw in London in the spring of 1982, we'd be in Baghdad by now. Materiel? We'd have coped somehow. Allies? With 'em or without 'em. Bases? We'd have taken what we needed, and apologized later. But that was not the mood among our leaders even last fall; it is not the mood now; barring some horrid new atrocity against us, which Heaven forbid, it will surely not be the mood next spring. In my glummer moments I wonder if we are even capable of that mood.

Did I mention allies? If our leaders were sufficiently determined, it wouldn't matter a damn; but since (according to me) they are not, let's take a look at the line-up. Latest news:

Tony Blair has privately reassured his Labour Party critics that Britain will not back US military action against Iraq unless it wins the backing of the United Nations Security Council. His assurances, at a private meeting with senior Labour figures, were disclosed as Britain stepped up the pace to secure agreement through the Security Council for the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq. (London Daily Telegraph)

"Unless it wins the backing of the United Nations Security Council..." We all know what that means, don't we? So the British have bailed out, as I predicted last October. So that reduces the number of committed allies we have in this fight to... how many?... let's see... hmmm — oh: zero! Personally, this fact would not stop me; but then, I personally don't run the U.S. Department of State.

Which brings us to the Colin Powell problem. Bringing Powell into the cabinet will, I believe, come to be seen as a classic error by George W. Bush — given a whole chapter to itself in future textbooks on how to form a cabinet, or how to get a new administration off the ground. Powell has a huge constituency, far larger and more committed than the President's own. To be sure, a lot of people don't like him. Blacks don't like him because he's not "authentic" enough (which is to say, he shows no sign of hating white people). White liberals don't like him because he escaped from their plantation somehow. White conservatives don't like him because he's squishy on a lot of issues they care about: affirmative action, abortion, the Second Amendment, and so on.

However, if you add up all the blacks, all the committed white liberals and all the committed white conservatives, you only have about one-third of the electorate. The other two-thirds l-u-r-v-e Colin Powell. Even among my own readers, actually, there is a strong love-Powell contingent.

Which means that Powell can't be fired, and that a Powell resignation would be, as Mao Tse-tung once said in a similar case: "An earthquake of the eighth magnitude." Which means that Powell has an absolute veto on our foreign policy. This is the Colin Powell who has sold out tothe Riyadh-Cairo line on the Middle East, the Colin Powell who lined up in the dove camp with Jim Baker and the striped-pants Neville Chamberlain Appreciation Society from Foggy Bottom when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Colin Powell who wrote in his autobiography that Saddam was left standing at the end of the 1991 Gulf War because the desire to avoid further slaughter overwhelmed the desire to get rid of the dictator.

I favor war against Iraq. I believe a successful war against Iraq would trigger major attitude adjustment in the Middle East, to the benefit of us and the promotion of our values. I believe it would greatly enhance this country's security by removing a major supplier of WMD to terrorist gangs. But if our leaders believe that "the desire to avoid further slaughter" trumps the desire to take down our enemy; if they believe that Crown Prince Abdullah or Hosni Mubarak will lift one jeweled pinkie to assist our war aims; if they believe that we need the permission of crooks and despots before we act in our own interests; if they believe that Europe is militarily significant; if they believe that the U.N. Security Council is worth anything more than a thimbleful of rat's piss; if they believe that our fighting men and women cannot carry out their duties without a year and a half of preparation; if they believe all these things, then it would be best if we did not start a war at all. They do: We won't.

— Mr. Derbyshire is also an NR contributing editor

[SJackson]

The Iraqis are a tough nut in the sense of logistics and that very important strategic surprise. We've got to ensure that if we land Marines on those mud flats up at Basrah, we can support them...It's true that the Germans expected an invasion. They were totally duped as to where.

In a sense, you're making the no-go case.

Hitler was fooled as to location, and the nature of our deployments. But he knew we were deployed.

Sadaam was fooled tactically last time as well. He also knew we were deployed. Same mistake.

Saddam knows we're not deployed today.

It would be nice to think we could do it with air power and insurgents on the ground. But if we're going to attack him again, we have to be prepared for another major American ground action. When the necessary call ups begin we'll all know.

[PhilDragoo]

Might China be putting the Muslim world up to this? Who would benefit from a protracted war between the West and the Islamic countries? China -- they'd sit back, watching their two major enemies weakening one another, ready to pick up the spoils at the end.

On 9/11 I said China. A graduate of the Naval Academy now in the sea of COSCO containers in southern California said, "No, China wants the trade. This is muslims."

But the board game for millenia says they would use deniable surrogates to instigate struggle between their enemies.

This would be consistent with their Unrestricted Warfare principles.

Why would it not be especially attractive to the Chinese to engineer our involvement in Islamist struggle to give them a freer hand vis a vis Taiwan?

We have traitor-rapist 42 getting 300K to speak at China's annual Taiwan Roast in Australia, then having a private meeting with Abdullah. Why would there not be Clinton moles in FBI, CIA, DIA, etcetera serving as channels of information and disinformation?

It can readily be seen that the PRC would welcome a Hillary presidency, and the coordination between Clinton & Clinton, LLC, PRC and Anti-Semites 'R' Us would be a capable ethernet.

The service of the media and Democrat hack machine to the left and to the Islamists and to the Clintons is an established fact.

There is more facing Bush, Inc. than one Stalin aficionado in Bagdhad.

Not quite a Sax Rohmer, Tom Clancy, Jeff Head scenario, but anyone who is in the grease trap with Marc Rich, the mafiya, the top echelons of Interpol, and China Resources contributes to the smell from the carpet when wet.

[gwynapnudd]

"When he says something like that, and has that look in his eye, it's a done deal. "

Color me totally unimpressed with W's military prowess to date. I'll reconsider when we get Bin Laden, and Al Zawahiri on our trophy wall.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, and the conventional thinking was that we would be lucky to capture one Afghan city before the dreaded Afghan winter set in.

Osama is dead, by the way.

[gwynapnudd]

If he is dead, that is a good thing and it should be reported. Do you not agree that success should be reported?

[MissAmericanPie]

I have had the same "feeling" since the rap went from, "We must attack Iraq now before they attain their weapons of mass destruction, to, "Sometime in the future at the Presidents disgression", to, "If we should ever in future attack Iraq", to Collin Powell's honest statement "There are no plans on the President's desk to attack Iraq" and that is a direct quote.

It goes back and forth and is all over the board, one day it sounds like we will go in next week, and the next day it sounds like the last thing on anyone in the administrations mind.

I also have the "feeling" that if we attacked say Saudi Arabia instead, 40 to 70% of our terrorist problem would be solved.

[gwynapnudd]

In President Bush's credit, he did inherit a military that had been cut to the bone by Clintigula's policies and betrayals. Bases had to be set up in central Asian republics, which is an amazing feat in and of itself.

It is just frustrating to hear that more attacks on us are imminent and there seems to be no resolute action to stop them. But I suppose we not only had to rebuild the military, but the entire intelligence network too.

I suppose we should just be glad we aren't fighting a powerful enemy or multiple fronts. We should be grateful Clintigula left us any military at all.

[Zeroisanumber]

Armchair general doesn't understand that war doesn't happen in a vaccum. Moron.

[gwynapnudd]

Nobody is talking about the Chinese

I don't know if you saw this, but it may be of some interest.

China seeks land route to Afghanistan

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If anybody knows why right_to_defend is now 'No current Freeper by that Name', perhaps they can Freepmail me, if it shouldn't be posted.

[Texasforever]

I don't know but at least I now know there is a "God".

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I don't know but at least I now know there is a "God".

And his Archangel 'Admin Moderator'.

[Texasforever]

Look the best thing about the threat of war is the threat. Having said that. The entire timetable for taking out Saddam was thrown completely off balance with the latest flare-ups between Israel and the Palestinians. Both this nation's and the rest of the world's focus shifted from international terrorism back to the never ending localized war between Israel and Arafat. The entire issue, once again, was shrunk back to the familiar world view that Middle Eastern "peace" and foreign policy revolved around a 30 year old internal war. Bush, like so many presidents before him, has allowed our foreign policy to be hijacked by that problem. It could be that the momentum we had with Afghanistan has been sacrificed to that reality.

[Dog Gone]

If he is dead, that is a good thing and it should be reported. Do you not agree that success should be reported?

I'm not sure about that. First of all, there are no reports of us finding his remains and confirming his identity through DNA. All we have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence. There remains a remote possibility that he is alive, so an announcement would be premature.

Additionally, confirmation of his death would give the peaceniks in our Congress and around the world a new reason to bash our efforts to combat global terrorism. With Osama out of the picture, some official support from our pathetic allies might evaporate entirely. A strong case can be made that it's in our interest to keep the myth of Osama's survival intact.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Saddam knows we're not deployed today.

You may be right. But I wonder if we are not deploying a lot of high tech gadgets and special ops types to look as if are not deployed when we really are. Look at the B-2. They don't have to "deploy" at all to ruin your whole day.

I think it still comes down to information. If we could locate Saddam -- there might be a B-2 over Baghdag right now.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Kurdish allies, etc.

Two BIG problems there:

1. The Kurds are still smarting from the end of Desert Storm, when we egged them on, and then stood by while Saddam wacked them. They are not eager to repeat that experience.

2. Ask yourself - exactly what do the Kurds want? Do they simply want to topple Saddam, or do they want their own homeland, a Kurdish State? The latter is quite problematic, for the Kurdish nation straddles the border between Iraq and Turkey. And in Turkey, those Kurds who clamor for a homeland are known as "terrorists" (very versatile word, isn't it?) The Turks will never agree to a Kurdish State - even one carved out of Iraq - for fear that it would spark an irredentist movement among the Kurds living in Turkey. And the Turks are our allies - we routinely look the other way when the Turks cross the border and wack the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

In short, I don't see the Kurds going along.

Well, you're right.

What we did to the Kurds was SO crappy. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the iamges of the Kurds being overrun didn't occur to some people when they were in the voting booth in 1992.

It seems though, that trying to go through Turkey is a lesser risk than trying to hit Basrah.

In the latter, you've got Iran and China on your flank and many people who don't like you all around.

But if you want strategic and operational surprise at least, send in the Marines and land the landing force!

Walt

[BlackVeil]

Buaya was exactly right with those details on the Kurdish situation. I would add one more aspect, which is the rather depressing constant civil war between the Kurds themselves. This means that one or another faction of them can fall in with the Iraqi regime. They do collaborate in the breaking of sanctions through the northern border, it is in their interests one can't expect them not to do it.

The other faction of interest is the Shia population of southern Iraq, who are dominated by an Iranian-oriented Islamic movement. One can't knock over Sadaam Hussein without vastly increasing the power of Iran. This is one of the reasons why the Gulf states are nervous and they support Iraq.

[BlackVeil]

Why no more "Right to Defend"? I used to debate him all the time. He was part of our "bio-weapons" discussion circle.

[The Great Satan]

Has right_to_defend been banned?

[Mitchell]

Has right_to_defend been banned?

Apparently so. Comments by him have been removed by the moderators. I have no idea why.